What are the differences between primary and secondary sources? Primary Sources
These are first-hand accounts by someone who was actually there at the time, though they may not have been written exactly at that time. Examples of primary sources are letters and diary entries by people, photographs, audio or video recordings from that time. Newspaper articles are generally considered to be primary sources, particularly if they are used to illustrate the understanding of the public at the time, but if an article author is getting his or her information from other sources, they are removed from the immediate events and some articles are then secondary sources.
Secondary Sources
These are articles, books, etc., written about people or events by others who were not there at the time. These might include biographies, scholarly articles about a subject, interviews with experts who have studied the subject, movies about the topic, etc.
Why do we need to use both?
Primary sources offer details and also lend an air of authenticity to our learning. They are the raw events and the ways people reacted to those events at that time. Even a simple first-hand description of a carriage ride through colonial Virginia is something that can only be imagined today. Secondary sources, on the other hand, give us the bigger picture and help us interpret the primary sources we encounter. Secondary sources, particularly if based on primary accounts, can save many hours in helping to understand what a primary source tells us, or even in locating those primary sources that we might want to view.
I suggest starting with the secondary source. Read a passage in a textbook or other history book or wikipedia to get an overview of the time period, event, person, etc. Then focus in on a primary source or two that the secondary source cites. Do you agree with the interpretation of the secondary source author? Do you learn additional information that was not included in the secondary sources? Can you find other sources that either support the secondary article or point to a different interpretation?
Of course you might also work the other way. Start with a primary source and develop your own understanding of it. Then find secondary sources to give context to the primary source, or to provide an expert's understanding of it. Secondary sources could also point out other primary sources that you should also study.
What about accuracy and bias?
Tough question. I think primary sources are strongly biased, and are supposed to be. They represent the opinions and beliefs of whoever said or wrote them. (What about a person who takes a photograph?) They are, however, limited to the experience of the individual and may only represent a single viewpoint, or a thin slice of everything that actually occurred. In that way, you might need to find a bunch of primary sources from the same moment in time to get a more accurate overall understanding.
On the other hand, just because a secondary source is typically more complete, it will also have the bias of whoever put it together. Perhaps they intentionally included only some of the primary sources, or discounted one view of the situation in favor of another.
Primary Sources
These are first-hand accounts by someone who was actually there at the time, though they may not have been written exactly at that time. Examples of primary sources are letters and diary entries by people, photographs, audio or video recordings from that time. Newspaper articles are generally considered to be primary sources, particularly if they are used to illustrate the understanding of the public at the time, but if an article author is getting his or her information from other sources, they are removed from the immediate events and some articles are then secondary sources.
Secondary Sources
These are articles, books, etc., written about people or events by others who were not there at the time. These might include biographies, scholarly articles about a subject, interviews with experts who have studied the subject, movies about the topic, etc.
Why do we need to use both?
Primary sources offer details and also lend an air of authenticity to our learning. They are the raw events and the ways people reacted to those events at that time. Even a simple first-hand description of a carriage ride through colonial Virginia is something that can only be imagined today. Secondary sources, on the other hand, give us the bigger picture and help us interpret the primary sources we encounter. Secondary sources, particularly if based on primary accounts, can save many hours in helping to understand what a primary source tells us, or even in locating those primary sources that we might want to view.
I suggest starting with the secondary source. Read a passage in a textbook or other history book or wikipedia to get an overview of the time period, event, person, etc. Then focus in on a primary source or two that the secondary source cites. Do you agree with the interpretation of the secondary source author? Do you learn additional information that was not included in the secondary sources? Can you find other sources that either support the secondary article or point to a different interpretation?
Of course you might also work the other way. Start with a primary source and develop your own understanding of it. Then find secondary sources to give context to the primary source, or to provide an expert's understanding of it. Secondary sources could also point out other primary sources that you should also study.
What about accuracy and bias?
Tough question. I think primary sources are strongly biased, and are supposed to be. They represent the opinions and beliefs of whoever said or wrote them. (What about a person who takes a photograph?) They are, however, limited to the experience of the individual and may only represent a single viewpoint, or a thin slice of everything that actually occurred. In that way, you might need to find a bunch of primary sources from the same moment in time to get a more accurate overall understanding.
On the other hand, just because a secondary source is typically more complete, it will also have the bias of whoever put it together. Perhaps they intentionally included only some of the primary sources, or discounted one view of the situation in favor of another.